Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1888 (MAD)

N. Devan v. General Manager

2014-07-03

R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Conductor cum Driver in the respondent Corporation with all benefits. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that by communication dated 20.01.2008, the petitioner was directed to appear for an interview on the basis of the employment seniority for the post of Driver. The petitioner appeared in the said interview and thereafter, the petitioner was selected on 23.02.2007 and directed to join the duty. A communication dated 14.02.2008, was also sent to the Assistant Director, District Employment Office, Madurai, on the basis of which, the petitioner's name was removed from the Roll. However, neither the petitioner was called for joining the duty nor orders were issued to him. Hence, he has come forward before this Court for appropriate relief. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is contended that the candidates were called for interview for the post of Drivers and the eligible candidates were selected for the existing vacancies in Chennai route, but, subsequently, the respondent Corporation decided not to operate the additional buses in that route and only thereafter, the selection made was cancelled. Hence, he opposed the relief sought for by the petitioner. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed set of papers and submitted that the petitioner has been duly selected by the respondent Corporation for the post of Driver and the same has been communicated to the District Employment Office also by their communication dated 23.02.2007, consequent to which, the name of the petitioner has been made to remove from the Roll. He further argued that the action of the respondent in subsequently cancelling the selection of the candidates, would cause prejudice to their interest and without adducing any reasons much less a valid reason, the petitioner was denied his employment. Hence, he prayed for appropriate relief to the petitioner. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent reiterated the averments in the counter affidavit and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 7. Hence, he prayed for appropriate relief to the petitioner. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent reiterated the averments in the counter affidavit and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the respondent Corporation called for the eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange for the post of Drivers and accordingly, on receipt of the same, the respondent selected the candidates and communicated the same to the District Employment Office, subsequent to which, such names were removed from the Roll. Moreover, the reasons adduced by the respondent for cancelling the selection made by them, cannot be justified at any score. 8. Also, this Court, by order dated 24.02.2010, directed the respondent Corporation to keep one post of Heavy Motor Vehicle Driver cum Conductor, taking into account the claim of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders appointing the petitioner in the existing vacancy and such exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.